News

Atherton: Little League structure too big for the park?

When Atherton voters overwhelmingly approved a 2012 ballot measure allowing ball field improvements in their town's only park, many believed their vote merely permitted the town to work with Menlo-Atherton Little League to come up with a reasonable plan for such a project.

Now, a number of residents who voted for Measure M are protesting what they believe to be a circumvention of the town's normal planning process to allow the youth sports organization to build, at its own expense, a permanent grandstand on the Holbrook-Palmer Park playing field that they say is too big and inappropriate for the park setting.

Several of those residents spoke out at the Jan. 15 City Council meeting at which the council, on a 3-2 vote, sanctioned the Little League's plan for a grandstand designed to seat 200 people.

"It's a question of scope," Julie Quinlan told the council after noting that she's the mother of a Little League player, and praising the organization for its work. "Having attended many, many, many Little League games, I think this is way too big," she said, adding that she hasn't seen more than 40 or 50 people attending the games.

"I urge the council to approve what is needed and reasonable, given the use, and no more."

Her assessment of the grandstand's proposed size was echoed by other residents at the meeting, and by Phil Lively, who was speaking for the town's Planning Commission, of which he is vice chair. The commission last year, after conducting three public meetings on the plans, unanimously found that the proposed size of the project was "too monumental and too large in scale," and recommended that it be downsized.

Council members Bill Widmer and Jim Dobbie agreed that the size of the grandstand edifice, which would also include restrooms and a storage area, should be reduced. They voted against the council's action that night, which included approval of other, less controversial Little League plans for field and park improvements, and authorization of the city manager to execute an agreement with the organization after administrative permits are issued.

What did voters approve?

Adding to the controversy was the town staff's interpretation that in approving Measure M, residents were sanctioning a grandstand that seats 200. In a staff report, Community Services Director Mike Kashiwagi wrote that "staff believes that passage of Measure M established parameters and approved construction of ... permanent covered seating for 200 spectators and covered dugouts."

Although neither the ballot language nor the impartial analysis written by City Attorney Bill Conners specified the size of the "covered seating for spectators" included in the measure, the rebuttal to the argument in favor of the measure referred to "200 seats at the baseball stadium." Ballot arguments, Mr. Conners told the Almanac, along with the ballot language and the impartial analysis "together paint a picture so that voters know what they're voting on."

Some residents, including Ms. Quinlan, an attorney, and Denise Kupperman, dispute that assessment. "When I voted for this ballot measure, my understanding was that I was voting for improvements to the Little League field," Ms. Kupperman told the council. "I did not ... consider that the rebuttal and the arguments were the legal part of the ballot measure since (they are) really just arguments, and people can basically say whatever they want. ... It's not a fact that we voted on a structure for 200 people, and that is my major concern."

Further complicating the question is the language in the city attorney's impartial analysis stating that approval of Measure M "will not automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which will still have to go through the normal Town land use review process."

Mr. Conners noted during the Jan. 15 meeting that interpreting what exactly voters intended "is gray area." He noted later that he "never told the City Council they had to allow 200 seats."

The question may, in the end, not have mattered to the council members who supported the grandstand's 200-seat capacity. Mayor Cary Wiest and Councilwoman Elizabeth Lewis seemed comfortable with the size, with Ms. Lewis speculating that as Little League grows, more people will attend the games.

Councilman Rick DeGolia told the Almanac that he would have preferred a scaled-down grandstand plan. "Personally, I believe that it's a third (larger) than what's needed," he said.

He said he didn't believe that Mr. Conners was directing the council to approve the larger size, but he voted for it because he didn't want the Little League to walk away from the project. "I believe it was proposed (by town officials) to the Little League to reduce the seating numbers, but they rejected that," he said.

"The issue to my mind was 50 unnecessary seats, and (that wasn't) worth sacrificing the donation," he said. "I also feel that a wonderful contribution is being made to the town. ... I think this is going to be a really good thing for the park and for Atherton."

Little League officials now must submit final plans and specifications to the town to receive permits and administrative approvals before a final agreement is signed. Town planner Lisa Costa Sanders said she doesn't expect the designs for the project to change significantly, but staff will review the plans for compliance with building and fire codes, ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance, and other town requirements.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 13, 2014 at 12:15 pmPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

If built as planned this project will fundamentally change the character and use of the park.

The council should require that all of the proposed structures and scoreboard and fences be staked out for 30 days with poles indicate the size and height of each element so that the citizens can actually see what is being planned.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 13, 2014 at 12:56 pmPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is how Laguna Beach requires staking:

"The City's Design Review process requires stakes to be constructed which depict the elevations and silhouette of a proposed structure or an addition to an existing building. These stakes are commonly called "story poles" and are used by staff, the design review authority and neighbors to help evaluate a project application."

"The staking plan must be developed so that after construction of the story poles there will be an accurate reflection of the proposed building envelope for all proposed structures and/or additions."

"Story poles shall be erected at least 28 days prior to the design review authority's first noticed public hearing date (or 14 days prior to administrative design review hearing or a design review continuance), and shall remain in place until action on the project has taken place and the 14-day appeal period has expired. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer must establish by survey the location of the proposed story poles on the site, as well as the height of each story pole. Staff recommends that the poles be made of 2" x 4" lumber with wire, twine or rope line strung between them to show the various structural elements."

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 13, 2014 at 3:49 pmPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is motion that the Council approved:
"MOTION by Lewis, second by DeGolia to approve staff recommendation, with the caveat that there be a "post-season" check-in on how things worked and what needs to change each year and that the facility be constructed in a manner that is consistent with the historic character of facilities in the Park. The motion passed 3-2 with Dobbie and Widmer opposed."

Clearly staking out the planned facility would permit a pre-construction determination that "the facility be constructed in a manner that is consistent with the historic character of facilities in the Park."

Posted by Monstrosity?
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 13, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Hey Monster! Last time I walked the perimeter was last year with my kids. When did you last walk it?
Still feels pretty small to me for a Little League scoreboard (for those of us who grew up in rural areas, which is what Atherton's town theme used to be until a couple of years ago... wonder why that quote suddenly disappeared from the town website?). Also curious about how the wording of Olive's will regarding restrictions on the use of the park also recently disappeared from official websites... now they all just suggest that Olive gave the land for "use as a park".

Posted by 200 strong
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Feb 14, 2014 at 8:42 am

200 people? Where would these people come from? Let's see....there are 15 children per team which means 30 kids. The average size family is four. One of the four is playing. So all the other family members would need to come to the game which would make the stands full at 90. That said, it is possible that some of the parents coach and some of the siblings umpire. So 90 is too high. Maybe there will be major league or college scouts in the stands evaluating these 6th graders.

What is everyone thinking.

Also what is Bill Conners thinking.....everything in each ballot measure is binding? Maybe we need to get Bill on the Legal team fighting the Bullet train. With his logic killing the project would be a slam dunk!

Posted by Confused
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 14, 2014 at 6:33 pm

While I do appreciate Mr. Carpenter's efforts, he does like to sensationalize things.
His statement "If built as planned this project will fundamentally change the character and use of the park." couldn't be more false. Statistically speaking, the park is already a ballpark. I am guessing that more traffic comes through the park for baseball than all other activities combined!

Posted by Confused
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm

olive's will is quite clear when it says "high class recreation park". Regardless of anyone's interpretation of the phrase, it is impossible to argue a new library is more consistent with olive's will than this new wonderful ball park. One could easily argue that a new park replete with nice restrooms, comfortable stands, snackshack and a beautiful new scoreboard is much more in line with olive's wishes for a "high class recreation park". NOT ONCE are the words "rural", "quaint" etc. mentioned in her will. Her only words were "high class". Anyone arguing for a "diminutive" "quaint" little sand lot should read olive's will!!!!! One last thing, currently not many people attend games because it is one of the worst facilities in the area in the wealthiest area. it could easily be argued the current park flies in the face of olive's wishes for a "high class recreation park" the current ballpark is a dump, a disgrace!

Posted by Concerned neighbor
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 15, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Why does the article quote the Rebuttal to the Argument in favor? That was put forth by opponents of the field. Here is what the proponents of the field said, in their Rebuttal to Argument Against measure M"...the design is not intended to accommodate 200 people. The anticipated use is for 100 people seated comfortably..." The measure itself, the Impartial Analysis, and the Argument in Favor all avoided any mention of the size of the seating. Only in this rebuttal do the actual people proposing the field make a statement as to its size, so I would certainly expect that it would not exceed their own stated parameters.

Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Feb 16, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Confused wrote:
> park is already a ballpark

And this, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the attitudes of a small (hopefully, anyways) but vocal group of parents in little-league.

Basically, screw everyone else, we're taking the park, we don't care about the fair usage of the park for any other group but us.

I hope that common sense prevails and the modifications to the field are modest and no more invasive than the benches at Burgess, and that all groups will continue to have equal enjoyment of the park.

And I agree with Peter: a lot of the uncertainty would disappear if LL actually published their plans. They're just inviting trouble if they don't. It's the public's park, not LL, and if we don't like what is built we are free to remove it.

Posted by Bribes
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:04 pm

Did you all forget the bribes that Little League offered the park to get this approved? The tennis courts are to be re-surfaced by Little League, pathways and other projects at the park were offered in this deal as well.

The town was PLAYED by these guys! Literally "PLAYED" They hired architects, attorneys, PR advocaes to get their project sold! They offered BBQ at the park to show what great guys they are and how this would beautify our park. Most of these guys live in Menlo Park and not Atherton. Menlo Park does not want their money and will not allow Burgess or other fields in town to have this MONSTROUS BUILD OUT. They systematically pitched and sold this to Parks & Recreation, Atherton Dames, Tennis Pro....on and on.

I walk the perimeter of the park daily and love our park! I do not think it is too large at all, it is a very small footprint of open space in our town. It should be left for open to all user groups. I see families using the park on the weekends playing various sports, coeds playing lacrosse, frisbee groups, soccer groups. Menlo Atherton Little League is for boys and to give a part of our park to a boys only sport is gender baised Please do not allow this mis-use of a park! This is not a ball park, it is a park with multiple uses for multiple users, not just baseball.

For the gentleman who complained that HPP is the worst condition ball park - then move along. Be grateful the town and people of Atherton ever approved playing baseball in the park. Talk about give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Sounds like entitlement at its worst!!!

Posted by Gimme a Break
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Wow! Confused is calling our park a dump and a disgrace! Guess who put that dump of a ballfield in the park and maintains it? Yes you are right Menlo-Atherton Little League. They maintain it themselves and they let it degrade to a "dump". Why would anyone in town want them to put up buildings, scoreboard and fences that they will allow to degrade and not maintain????

Where is the oversight on this project? Where is the money going to reside for ongoing maintenance? What if it gets spray painted or damaged? Are you going to have to look at that on our walks? Who is going to clean it up? Who maintains the bathrooms? The town has outsourced park maintenance! How much more tax money are we going to have to pay in the future to maintain this ridiculous overbuilt project? Who's asking these questions???

Posted by Bribes
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Read below as the Little League threatened to walk from the donation/bribes and the Council did not want to lose the bribes. They are selling our park to these developers that will completely change our lovely park. Leave the kids to play in the park, all users! Let parent bring their own portable chairs the same way they do for Soccer, Softball, Lacrosse and any other field sport. The % of Atherton children playing Little league is incredibly small, this is not needed!

Councilman Rick DeGolia told the Almanac that he would have preferred a scaled-down grandstand plan. "Personally, I believe that it's a third (larger) than what's needed," he said.

He said he didn't believe that Mr. Conners was directing the council to approve the larger size, but he voted for it because he didn't want the Little League to walk away from the project. "I believe it was proposed (by town officials) to the Little League to reduce the seating numbers, but they rejected that," he said.

"The issue to my mind was 50 unnecessary seats, and (that wasn't) worth sacrificing the donation," he said. "I also feel that a wonderful contribution is being made to the town. ... I think this is going to be a really good thing for the park and for Atherton."

No one has addressed the noise this Little League stadium will produce. The Felton Gables neighborhood of Menlo Park backs right up to the park. Who wants to listen to LL games every weekend? We already have a problem with amplified noise from other events at the park. Please don't add more.

Atherton kids shouldn't be be forced to play ball in Atherton. There are plenty of fabulous ballparks in Woodside, Portola Valley and Menlo Park for them enjoy Little League. Why waste taxpayer dollars and risk raising the ire of citizens. Why not avoid sacrificing any of the 22 acres for gaudy foul lines, stands for seating, backstops or storage. It would be a dame shame to mar the beauty of the park, and the noise, such noise! (there may be a solution here, pitch, bat, and field only when the train approaches!)

Posted by Time to wake up
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 20, 2014 at 7:06 am

Hey folks, that's not all the council troika and their highly paid city manager have in mind for our quiet park. Corporate events of hundreds of people in the park, daily. And just when it doesn't get any better, a dog park taking up the north meadow or along the Felton gable neighborhood. The quiet park will soon be no more.

Lots of changes which are being quietly brought forward. It is time to wake up and save our park.

Posted by Troika
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 20, 2014 at 8:43 am

The troika is trying to turn the park into a money making carnival to help pay for the outrageous police contract they just gave their campaign donors, the Atherton PD. Little league in the park ties into this. Now that we're going to have multi hundred spectator games regularly, the troika will argue for more police services. Also note the new "town center", allegedly being built with just private donations, is already costing taxpayer money in terms of an expensive architect hired by Elizabeth Lewis. This is all about giving a Taj Mahal to the cops, to prevent outsourcing. Note that whenever actual crime is occurring, like the thefts on Selby, or the recent Lindenwood vandalism, the cops are not apprehending any criminals.

Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Feb 20, 2014 at 11:21 am

> Atherton kids shouldn't be be forced to play
> ball in Atherton.

Kids have been sharing the park with other kids, including playing ball, for years. Why do you want to change that?

> There are plenty of fabulous ballparks in
> Woodside, Portola Valley and Menlo Park
> for them enjoy Little League.

Agreed, and if LL builds seating no bigger and no more obtrusive than the benches at Burgess, Holbrook Palmer will continue to be just as "fabulous" a recreational park, and equally enjoyable for LL and other groups.

> Why waste taxpayer dollars and risk raising
> the ire of citizens.

Agreed, why would LL even consider wasting money? If they build something bigger than what people already enjoy at Burgess, we'll just rip it out.

> Why not avoid sacrificing any of the 22 acres
> for gaudy foul lines,

Uh, foul lines are made of chalk, and chalk washes away easily and can hardly be described as "gaudy". Perhaps you're not familiar with the rules of Baseball. It's a fantastic game! Here's a link to a description of baseball. Try some google searches to get more info, or even try attending a game someday! Fun!

Provided the benches are in-line with what is installed at Burgess Park, I think adding a little seating would be nice. We agree to disagree.

> backstops

Uh, there's already a backstop. It sounds like you've never been to Holbrook Palmer (though I understand why; Central Menlo is almost as nice as Atherton!). You should check Holbrook Palmer out sometime, it's quite nice!

> or storage.

Uh, there's already a storage shed onsite, not far behind the backstop. But of course you wouldn't know that since you've never been to Holbrook Palmer Park. You should leave Central Menlo sometime and check out Holbrook Palmer, it's quite nice!

> It would be a dame shame to mar the beauty of the park,

Agreed. And it would be even more of a shame if Little League tried to deny other groups equal opportunity for equal usage of the park.

> the noise, such noise!

I live about 2 blocks from Holbrook Palmer. I rarely hear much from the park, though when I do it's rare enough to be a distraction. I don't agree with you; so far the noise coming from HP seems pretty reasonable; we'll agree to disagree. And kids have been playing there for years, including Little League.

As long as Little League implements improvements that promote equal usage and in a scale similar to the benches at Burgess, modest improvements to the field are a win for everyone.

> (there may be a solution here, pitch, bat,
> and field only when the train approaches!)

Posted by Summing it up
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 20, 2014 at 12:39 pm

Little League must figure the Troika is going to be in power forever. If they don't respect the will of Atherton's residents and build out a structure more than twice the size of what's reasonable, it's just going to get torn down in relatively short order.

Posted by Remember when
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 20, 2014 at 1:27 pm

Remember back to when there was no Little League diamond and backstop in the park. It was a big battle to get that approved. One of the parameters was atthe end of the season the backstop fencing needed to be taken down each year.

Several years ago that changed and parks and recreation approved leaving the backstop fencing up year round. That should suffice. It met the requirements. Kids play baseball there and it's not a big issue. No one has been seriously injured. The little league prefers to maintain it themselves. All is fine.

Big ego with big dollars comes and wants his name on a world class ball park in his town. He's done it in other cities and wants it here. That's what this all boils down to. Money and Ego.

Posted by Walter Sleeth
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm

The comments to Ms. Batti's article and to the previous week's Guest Opinion make it clear that there is not happiness in 'River City'. Through a combination of factors the MA-LL has at the moment placed 'an elephant' in the room.

Two of those factors are 1) the misinterpretation of the voting results on Measure M, heavily influenced ty by the off-the-cuff opinion of the Town's attorney, which he seemed to retreat from in comments to Ms. Batti after the Council meeting in January and 2) the failure of the Council's majority to recognize that control of a significant portion of the Park was being put at risk with their acquiescence to the pressures from the MA-LL. There is no question the Little League has pursued this issue for a long time, but if it is not good for a majority of Atherton's residents, we should not move ahead with it. Just because the residents passed Measure M does not mean they expected to find this 'elephant' at the rear of the Park. Once the MA-LL has made its donation, it will be very hard for the Town to control who gets to play at this Little League stadium.

Mr. Carpenter's suggestion of a 'stakeout' of the structure and subsequent public evaluation is an excellent one. Similarly, an architectural model or replica is necessary to determine just what is envisaged. The residents want the Council's action to be revisited.

Protected, if the site is staked out, at least all regular visitors to the park would have an idea of the proposal. Currently, we are debating more or less in the dark.

The fact that renderings of the proposed constructions are not available online can hardly be a promising sign. Usually, good news has a habit of making itself known, while bad news stays under wraps until it's too late...

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 22, 2014 at 7:21 amPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

Protected - Thank you for the link.

Looking at pages 6 and 7, which show the elevations, and page 8, which shows the 3 D perspective, easily convinces me that this structure is much too large for the Park and should not be built as presented. And if it is built as presented I predict that there will be a big backlash.

I note that the LL has carefully avoided publicizing the availability of these drawings - now I know why.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 22, 2014 at 10:11 amPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If 100 people create a backlash because they do not want the Grandstands-- and would change their vote-- what does that mean when 2,700 voted yes and only 900 voted no? "

The ballot measure specified a then unspecified structure that would later be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and the Town Council - the Planning Commission rejected the current design as being too large.

Posted by protected
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm

Here is the Text of the Ballot from www.ballotpedia.org.

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure M: "Should the Town permit the Menlo-Atherton Little League to improve the baseball field and surrounding areas at Holbrook-Palmer Park, including covered seating for spectators, an improved playing area for children, and new restrooms for all park users, using private funds only?"

Path to the ballot

The measure was referred to the ballot on August 7, 2012 by a 3-2 vote of the Atherton Town Council.[1]

Bill Widmer, Jim Dobbie and Kathy McKeithen were the three town council members who voted in favor of placing the measure on the ballot.

Posted by Baseball family
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Feb 23, 2014 at 8:44 am

Put up some poles and stake out the plan. Let everyone see how big or small the structure is and then build a reasonable structure for the site. Restrooms are needed, but 200 people and tractor storage?
Little league is stream rolling this but they need to learn that modest structure is better than an oversized monument. Build a reasonable sized park.

"Staking is required for projects that involve a new structure, additions greater than 50% of the original floor area, second-story additions to an existing structure, and any addition, which in the estimation of staff or the design review authority, may cause concerns about bulk and mass or view blockage."

Posted by Resident
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 23, 2014 at 11:32 pm

Something doesn't sound right here. How does a project this big get built without planning commission approval? As a resident who voted for the park I assumed our planners would work with LL to shape the size and scope of the project to keep the integrity of the park intact. Now it seems despite their objections they are being instructed to just let it go unchecked. The current size is much larger than needed and everyone seems to recognize this but is unwilling to say it.

It sure makes sense to put up some story poles and stakes to get a sense of the project. I honestly doubt anyone expected a park this size to be built without any town oversight.

Posted by mighty casey
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 23, 2014 at 6:55 pm

Protected, thanks for the link. very enlightening.

In Sept. 2012 LL held an open house at the field complete with staking to show the voters the layout of the grandstand area, complete with height. The field size was, to my dismay, very diminutive in size, wrapping around the rear of the backstop and not even going up the base lines. I was very impressed it was not too large. I was even offered a refreshment along with the nearly 300 people who showed up that day. They passed out literature on the improvements too.

This will be proven to be much ado about nothing once built. The leaders of the log jam seem to be the same group who didn't get their library. Intriguing. I hope the Council marches forward with this plan.

So how come you weren't at the stake out? oh right, just like the plans that have been public knowledge for months, you didn't know about it. LAME!

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.